Opinion
J-S63035-15 No. 885 EDA 2014
11-12-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. LLOYD L. BUTLER, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on February 7, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0009687-2012; CP-51-CR-0009689-2012 BEFORE: DONOHUE, MUNDY and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Lloyd L. Butler ("Butler") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions of two counts of murder in the first degree and one count of possession of an instrument of crime ("PIC"). See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 907(a). We affirm.
Lloyd Butler is also known as Christopher Lloyd Butler.
The trial court set forth the relevant underlying factual and procedural history in its Opinion, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/15/14, at 1-9.
Butler was tried with codefendant, Zaiee Talbert ("Talbert"). The trial ended with a hung jury as to Talbert's charges. However, Talbert was subsequently tried separately and was convicted of two counts each of murder in the first degree and criminal conspiracy. Talbert has appealed his judgment of sentence at 719 EDA 2015.
On appeal, Butler raises the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the verdict was against the sufficiency of the evidence, when [Butler's] cell phone and cell phone tower records demonstrated that he was not involved in the shooting[?]Brief for Appellant at 4.
2. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, when [Butler's] cell phone and cell phone tower records demonstrated that he was not involved in the shooting[?]
In his first claim, Butler argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because there was no physical evidence tying him to the homicides. Id. at 11. He contends that his cell phone and cell phone tower records establish that he was on the phone with his girlfriend from the time prior to shooting, during the relevant time of the shooting, and after the shooting. Id. Butler argues he could not possibly have been shooting guns while talking on his cell phone at the same time, without the other person on the line hearing gunshots. Id. He asserts that his girlfriend testified she did not hear any gunshots while on the phone with Butler. Id. Butler claims that the cell phone records show that the phone conversation lasted for twenty-two minutes and thirty-seven seconds. Id.
Here, the trial court set forth the relevant law and determined that the claim is without merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/15/14, at 12-13. The jury was free to disbelieve Butler and his girlfriend's testimony that they were talking on their cell phones at the time of the murders. See Commonwealth v. Melvin , 103 A.3d 1, 40 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony presented). Thus, for this claim we adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court for the purpose of this appeal, and conclude that its findings are supported by competent evidence, and its legal conclusions are sound. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/15/14, at 12-13; see also Melvin , 103 A.3d at 40.
Butler does not specifically challenge his conviction of possessing an instrument of crime. However, after a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain this conviction. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/15/14, at 2-9, 13; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a) (stating "[a] person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses any instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally).
In his second claim, Butler argues this case should shock the conscience of the court because the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Brief for Appellant at 12. Butler contends he was found guilty for a crime which he has always claimed he did not commit. Id. Butler reiterates, in his second claim, that there is no physical evidence connecting him to the homicides. Id. He claims that eyewitness Lydia Morales ("Morales") stated to the police, and later recanted at trial, that she saw Butler standing over the victim, Jonathan Stokely ("Stokely"), and shooting him with a machine gun, and then saw Butler fleeing the scene in a purple van immediately afterwards. Id. Butler asserts Morales is mistaken because Butler's cell phone and cell phone tower records demonstrate that he remained in the area for two hours after the incident, and then went in a northeast direction. Id. Butler contests that, in contrast, the assailants in the purple van left the scene immediately after the shooting, and cell phone and cell phone tower records indicated that the van went in a southwest direction. Id.
We apply the following standard of review for challenges to the weight of the evidence:
A claim alleging the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Accordingly, an appellate court reviews the exercise of the trial court's discretion; it does not answer for itself whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. It is well[-] settled that the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim is only warranted where the fact-finder's verdict is so contrary to the evidence that it shocks one's sense of justice. In determining whether this standard has been met, appellate review is limited to whether the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised, and relief will only be granted where the facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of discretion.Commonwealth v. Karns , 50 A.3d 158, 165 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation and brackets omitted).
Here, the trial court set forth the relevant law, and determined that Butler's claim is without merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/15/14, at 13-15. We adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court for the purpose of this appeal, and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Butler's weight of the evidence claim. See id.; see also Karns , 50 A.3d at 165.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/12/2015
Image materials not available for display.